> Hi James (& Howard),
>
> --- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@...> wrote:
> >The citta theory, however, does hold some problems for me because of
> >the zero duration of the cittas and the `unaccounted for' gap between
> >them which must exist for them to be separate.
> ....
> S: Why must there be any gap?
>

=========================
What I can tell you from the mathematical perspective, Sarah, is this:
1) If the "time line" is one with a topology different from the ususal one,
which IS possible, there would be no necessity for a gap, but 2) with the usual
line, the so called real line, and based on the commentarial presumption of a
mindstate not being a single-point event but occuring during a (brief)
interval having three stages, of arising, stasis, and decline, gaps would be
required - but such a gap needn't be anything more than a single, timeless,
zero-dimensional (and zero-durational) point that would go fully unnoticed except by a
highly advanced ariyan. It might be what some with a mystical bent would call
a "moment in infinity". It is questionable, of course, whether such a
point-moment is to be considered a "gap".
The possible existence of such "gaps" has some interest, it seems to
me, in that such a "gap" might serve as "portal" for realization (a path
moment), if "walked through". (This business is just idle speculation, of course,
without either experiential or textual basis.)

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Andrew

Hello Howard & Sarah Reading this post has just prompted my memory about something. I don t think it s too far off-topic here, so I will interject with it, if

Message 2 of 2
, Jan 31, 2007

0 Attachment

Hello Howard & Sarah

Reading this post has just prompted my memory about something. I
don't think it's too far off-topic here, so I will interject with it,
if I may. I mentioned in another thread that I am ploughing through
a book on Abhidhamma by a Sri Lankan doctor, Jaya... [help, the book
is not to hand and I can't spell his name from memory!] In one part,
he made a throwaway comment that made me ponder. The throwaway was
essentially this - that the anatta doctrine only makes sense in
combination with a 'momentary citta' theory. He didn't develop the
argument (at least, not so far - I'm still reading) but I assume he
is thinking that non-momentary citta is de facto atta. Have you
heard this argument before? What do you think of it?